I'm sure most people have heard of the ever infamous video, whose pilot was put onto Youtube, disgracing Islam. Personally, I have not watched this video, and am not sure if there is another thread on this topic.
So, what is your opinion? How should the U.S. react to having one of it's ambassoders and several others murdered? Should the people who posted the video have it removed, fined, or given other punishments? Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech, and hating against one's beliefs.
(I am personally not one for religion, but if a person has devoted their life to it, it must mean quite a large deal to them)
People should have the right to remain uninsulted. The person instigating conflict is the one actively stirring the hornet's net.
Does the right to remain uninsulated take presidency over your right to say what you want? I was unaware we even had a right to remain uninsulated.
Besides, "Instigating the conflict" is really, no offense, a strange way to look at it. Why is it their fault they where attacked? It would be the equivalent to blaming a **** victim for being *****, or a man for getting his wallet stolen for walking the streets at night. It isn't their fault someone committed a crime for what they said, why would you blame them for it?
It's crazy what people think they have the freedom to say. You're infringing on the freedom of the insulted person. So my question again, is what makes your freedom to slur him, more important than his freedom to remain unsoiled and free from such baloney?
Last I checked, we in America have the freedom to say whatever we want. How does saying anything infringe on the rights of the insulted person? And then again, how do you describe insulting someone? Does it include political leaders?
Then why have so many American lone wolves targeted Muslims and Arabs in America since 9/11? The recent shooting of Sikhs just because they had turbans comes to mind. Americans are no better.
So many? While the anti-Muslim violence did triple, which is in no way a good thing, it is hardly a pleuge of "American lone wolves" going around and killing random Muslims, and saying it is is, ironically, quite offensive.
Does the right to remain uninsulated take presidency over your right to say what you want? I was unaware we even had a right to remain uninsulated.
Does it not? Criticizing religion is one thing, putting it across offensively is another.
Besides, "Instigating the conflict" is really, no offense, a strange way to look at it. Why is it their fault they where attacked? It would be the equivalent to blaming a **** victim for being *****, or a man for getting his wallet stolen for walking the streets at night. It isn't their fault someone committed a crime for what they said, why would you blame them for it?
You insult someone, you prepare for the consequences. Thinking that insulting someone without getting a reaction is naive. A **** victim doesn't go out and flash herself. A man doesn't go out with a wallet begging to be robbed. But if you know you're going to instigate and inflame feelings violently when you provoke people by smearing dirt on what they believe, you deal with the consequences, because you're actively provoking them. Muslim protesters are reacting, a robber and rapist already has the intention to commit their crime.
So many? While the anti-Muslim violence did triple, which is in no way a good thing, it is hardly a pleuge of "American lone wolves" going around and killing random Muslims, and saying it is is, ironically, quite offensive.
I didn't say it was a plague. A rise is a rise, and it is a bad thing. Nor is it offensive. It's a fact that even the FBI acknowledges. Anti-Muslim hate crimes soared by an astounding 50% in 2010, skyrocketing over 2009 levels in a year marked by the vicious rhetoric of Islam-bashing politicians and activists, especially over the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' in New York City.
Not when it is meant only to harass and condemn other people.
the truth can harass someone. should we therefor not speak about the truth?
There's next to nothing that the US government or judicial system will do when people yell out "It's my freedom of speech!" so they were protected from any legal action.
well thats a flaw in yout laws then. we had the same kinda thing happening at our WW2 remembrance Day. during a 2 min silence. he got arrested for disturbances of public order. and got 2 year jail for it.
The military only changes you if you want it to change you
what? hahahaha no, it changes you by the events that happen to you while in the military. you can't choose for it. you should go to war and see yourself
People should have the right to remain uninsulted
that is dangerous. what someone sees as a insult can be mend as not a insult. when i say. "your mom is so fat... etc." it can be seen as a joke (or fact) but it can also insult the person. if we have to keep in account that what we say can't insult someone. then we can better put a ban on communication at all.
that is dangerous. what someone sees as a insult can be mend as not a insult. when i say. "your mom is so fat... etc." it can be seen as a joke (or fact) but it can also insult the person. if we have to keep in account that what we say can't insult someone. then we can better put a ban on communication at all.
It's pretty obvious calling the Prophet a homosexual who indulges in gross sexual fantasies whilst depicting Islam as a religion purely of hate and violence isn't criticizing to help, but hate speech. As the White House said it, you CAN have freedom of speech. But when that become hate speech and desecrates another person's beliefs, you are abusing your freedom and infringing on the freedoms of others. People are won't to shout when their countries flags are burnt, yet turn a blind eye to Koran burning that occurs Ren within their own countries. If you are willing to subvert everything to freedom of speech and expression, don't condemn people when they burn your flag. Don't condemn them Wen they protest worldwide. Freedom of speech.
It's pretty obvious calling the Prophet a homosexual who indulges in gross sexual fantasies whilst depicting Islam as a religion purely of hate and violence isn't criticizing to help, but hate speech. As the White House said it, you CAN have freedom of speech. But when that become hate speech and desecrates another person's beliefs, you are abusing your freedom and infringing on the freedoms of others. People are won't to shout when their countries flags are burnt, yet turn a blind eye to Koran burning that occurs Ren within their own countries. If you are willing to subvert everything to freedom of speech and expression, don't condemn people when they burn your flag. Don't condemn them Wen they protest worldwide. Freedom of speech.
Nichodamus you said what I wanted to in a far better way. You should become a writer.
you CAN have freedom of speech. But when that become hate speech and desecrates another person's beliefs, you are abusing your freedom and infringing on the freedoms of others.
i agree on the hate speech part. the beliefs part is only politically correct to say.
Situation of violence up till now Egypt:- 3000 protesters besieged US embassy and tore down its flag. Libya:- 125 armed men attacked US embassy and killed the ambassador. Yemen:- Protesters entered US embassy, burned vehicles and buildings, 4 protesters died 11 wounded with 25 security personnel wounded. Lebanon:- 500000 Lebanese protested and set fire to many American businesses on fire. Sudan:- Protesters set fire to German embassy. Tunisia:- Protesters set American embassy and a school on fire. Afghanistan:- Taliban attacked camp Bastion killing 2 marines and destroying six jets in retaliation. A suicide attack killed 14. India:- Protesters threw stones and shoes in embassy. Indonesia:- 500 protesters attack US embassy but failed to enter. Pakistan:- In Islamabad, 100000 protesters tried to reach US Embassy but were stopped by police. They burnt many Police check points and cointainers. As a preventive measure Gov. is shutting the mobile service and sale of Petrol and CNG is banned in whole country. 40 Police men and 20 protesters wounded. Army has been called. In Karachi:- The Australian
News Opinion National Affairs Business Aus IT Higher Ed Media Sport Arts Life Magazines Careers Video News Breaking News The Nation The World Features In-Depth Galleries Investigations FOI Health & Science Weather Events
Login Sign Up
Search for: The World Pakistanis storm Karachi US Consulate in anti-Islam film protest
From: AP September 17, 2012 8:29AM
Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print
Karachi protest
Pakistani Muslims burn an American flag during an anti-US protest rally against an American produced film mocking Islam in Multan as at least eight people were injured after clashes with police outside the US consulate in Karachi. Source: AFP
HUNDREDS of Pakistanis protesting an anti-Islam film have broken through a barricade near the US Consulate in the southern city of Karachi, sparking clashes with police in which one demonstrator was killed and more than a dozen injured.
the truth can harass someone. should we therefor not speak about the truth?
Did you not read it at all? I said when it is meant ONLY to harass and condemn them. The truth is an attempt to inform them.
well thats a flaw in yout laws then. we had the same kinda thing happening at our WW2 remembrance Day. during a 2 min silence. he got arrested for disturbances of public order. and got 2 year jail for it.
In America, if that happened, people would just stare and that guy COULD possibly be arrested for disturbing the peace, but it wouldn't be any substantial jail time.
what? hahahaha no, it changes you by the events that happen to you while in the military. you can't choose for it. you should go to war and see yourself
You don't just go to war and then come back changed. If you kill someone or see someone killed, that event has happened. It's the person's own mind that destroys itself by obsessing over it.
that is dangerous. what someone sees as a insult can be mend as not a insult. when i say. "your mom is so fat... etc." it can be seen as a joke (or fact) but it can also insult the person. if we have to keep in account that what we say can't insult someone. then we can better put a ban on communication at all.
Whenever I post something, you take it to the utmost extreme and make it seem irrational. If you say something meant only to harass someone then, that is wrong and NOT free speech, you're just making an *** of yourself. What about that do you not see?
Does it not? Criticizing religion is one thing, putting it across offensively is another.
May I ask what the difference is? If we are continuing with Islam as an example, they not only don't want Mohammad shown badly (At all), they don't want him portrayed at all. How can you be critical of something, when you can not mention any of the negative points?
You insult someone, you prepare for the consequences. Thinking that insulting someone without getting a reaction is naive. A **** victim doesn't go out and flash herself. A man doesn't go out with a wallet begging to be robbed. But if you know you're going to instigate and inflame feelings violently when you provoke people by smearing dirt on what they believe, you deal with the consequences, because you're actively provoking them. Muslim protesters are reacting, a robber and rapist already has the intention to commit their crime.
So you are saying that these poor, innocent Muslims where just forced into murdering those big, evil diplomats who where in no way connected to the insults, besides their country of origin? I cannot comprehend the logic behind that. Lets just say that you are correct, and that they are provoked to a level that murder would somehow be a reasonable response, then why would they attack someone unrelated to the attack at all? It would be like finding out your wife slept with a Canadian, and then killing a random Canadian in anger.
I didn't say it was a plague. A rise is a rise, and it is a bad thing. Nor is it offensive. It's a fact that even the FBI acknowledges. Anti-Muslim hate crimes soared by an astounding 50% in 2010, skyrocketing over 2009 levels in a year marked by the vicious rhetoric of Islam-bashing politicians and activists, especially over the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' in New York City.
Fine, lets just say there was a raise and leave it at that. Back to the topic at hand:
Lets say you are in a court, as a judge, looking at a case like this. Then lets say there where two men, and one had assaulted the other near fatally, after he heard the man insult Jesus in a private conversation with a friend. What would you judge in that situation?
It's pretty obvious calling the Prophet a homosexual who indulges in gross sexual fantasies whilst depicting Islam as a religion purely of hate and violence isn't criticizing to help, but hate speech.
So the logical reaction to having your prophet a depraved sex freak who leads a violent religion is to....kill people? Even assuming that is hate speech, how is it fault of the producers that murder happened?
As the White House said it, you CAN have freedom of speech. But when that become hate speech and desecrates another person's beliefs, you are abusing your freedom and infringing on the freedoms of others
What is so wrong with "hate speech"? You are not infringing on anyone's rights by making a cheap b movie showing a religious figure in a bad light. You are not infringing on the rights of anyone if you downright hate homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, or anything else, and you are not infringing on your rights to say so loudly. You are not infringing on anyone's rights to yell at soldier's funerals, you are not infringing on anyone's rights to accuse the president of being a Kenyan born Muslim. What right could thoughts and words damage?
You are, however, infringing upon the basic rights of men if you either act on any of those words and thoughts in a negative way or react to this thoughts in negative ways. A man stabbing someone for reading the Torah in public is just as bad as a man stabbing someone for insulting the Torah in public, while insulting the Torah and reading the Torah are both just harmless uses of freedom of speech.
May I ask what the difference is? If we are continuing with Islam as an example, they not only don't want Mohammad shown badly (At all), they don't want him portrayed at all. How can you be critical of something, when you can not mention any of the negative points?
An example " Why George did this? I think what he did was wrong" "George did this so he is **** **** and ****"
So you are saying that these poor, innocent Muslims where just forced into murdering those big, evil diplomats who where in no way connected to the insults, besides their country of origin? I cannot comprehend the logic behind that. Lets just say that you are correct, and that they are provoked to a level that murder would somehow be a reasonable response, then why would they attack someone unrelated to the attack at all? It would be like finding out your wife slept with a Canadian, and then killing a random Canadian in anger.
In there defense, it can be said the film was MADE IN USA. US govrn. DID NOT stop or punish the culprits, it rather protects them citing US constitution does not allow it. Hence US govrn. is an accomplice to it and every govr. employ is a legitimate target.
Fine, lets just say there was a raise and leave it at that. Back to the topic at hand:
Lets say you are in a court, as a judge, looking at a case like this. Then lets say there where two men, and one had assaulted the other near fatally, after he heard the man insult Jesus in a private conversation with a friend. What would you judge in that situation?
I don't know about this but in case of film its called provocation.
What is so wrong with "hate speech"? You are not infringing on anyone's rights by making a cheap b movie showing a religious figure in a bad light. You are not infringing on the rights of anyone if you downright hate homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, or anything else, and you are not infringing on your rights to say so loudly. You are not infringing on anyone's rights to yell at soldier's funerals, you are not infringing on anyone's rights to accuse the president of being a Kenyan born Muslim. What right could thoughts and words damage?
You are, however, infringing upon the basic rights of men if you either act on any of those words and thoughts in a negative way or react to this thoughts in negative ways. A man stabbing someone for reading the Torah in public is just as bad as a man stabbing someone for insulting the Torah in public, while insulting the Torah and reading the Torah are both just harmless uses of freedom of speech.
Tell this to the ambassador, those 2 marines and those 14 people who died.
So the logical reaction to having your prophet a depraved sex freak who leads a violent religion is to....kill people? Even assuming that is hate speech, how is it fault of the producers that murder happened?
An example " Why George did this? I think what he did was wrong" "George did this so he is **** **** and ****"
The only difference is the words used, then?
In there defense, it can be said the film was MADE IN USA.
So logically, slaughter random US citizens? Who had nothing to do with it?
US govrn. DID NOT stop or punish the culprits, it rather protects them citing US constitution does not allow it.
Nor should it had. What doesn't the US constitution allow? It allows freedom of speech, religion, and the press, which DOES allow you to say whatever the hell you want.
In that scenario again, it would be like killing a random Canadian because a Canadian slept with your wife, because the Canadian government does not consider adultery illegal.
Hence US govrn. is an accomplice to it and every govr. employ is a legitimate target.
Huh?
I don't know about this but in case of film its called provocation.
In England, Australia, and other nations that hate our freedom. We don't have that law in America, last I checked.
Tell this to the ambassador, those 2 marines and those 14 people who died.
Alright, I will right now. How should I start? I am sorry that insane Islamic extremists have murdered you, infringing on your basic rights of humans. Thank you for serving your country, and defending people who where not infringing on the rights of others, like myself and the people who made the innocent video. Rest in Piece.
What would you say to the dead people?
Now you are trolling
I fail to see how I am "trolling", who I am "trolling", or any argument here.
Nor should it had. What doesn't the US constitution allow? It allows freedom of speech, religion, and the press, which DOES allow you to say whatever the hell you want.
If you refuse to take muslims feelings seriously don't complaint when more americans die over this matter. What will you prefer, lives saved or constitution kept unamended over this.
I refuse to take terrorist feelings seriously. If you kill someone because someone of the same nationally made a video that offended you, you are a terrorist.
don't complaint when more americans die over this matter.
And why the bloody hell not? If some moron kills for some idiotic reason, why should I take their feelings into consideration? Why would I ignore them? Last I checked, negotiating with terrorist was one of the worst options. You don't reward a child for bad behavior.
What will you prefer, lives saved or constitution kept unamended over this.
I would prefer to keep both, what your suggesting is losing both.
It is also important to state that the attacks likely had nothing to do with the video, and that no one actually "rotesting" the video actually saw the video (There was a youtube trailer, it had only been actually screened a dozen times in the US.). Taking down the "video" would get no advantage, while violating the rights of US citizens.
